Vickery Eckhoffhttp://vickeryeckhoff.com
Articles, Essays and a BlogoirWed, 17 Jun 2015 23:16:01 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/http://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngVickery Eckhoffhttp://vickeryeckhoff.com
Welfare Ranchers, Riding High (Again)http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/03/25/welfare-ranchers-riding-high-again/
http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/03/25/welfare-ranchers-riding-high-again/#commentsWed, 25 Mar 2015 11:47:31 +0000http://vickeryeckhoff.com/?p=1914]]>Nearly a year ago, following Forbes response to my writing about Cliven Bundy and the federal grazing program, I was approached by AlterNet with a proposition.

There had been some speculation that my Forbes departure had been spurred by Steve Forbes having grazing leases or that people with influence at Forbes did and that my exposing the federal grazing program was not to their liking. Would I be interested in writing a piece on rich welfare ranchers?

The idea of exploring that topic was attractive, even though I knew it would be challenging, so I agreed.

Today, almost a year later, I’m proud to publish “Forbes Billionaires Top US Welfare Ranchers List” on AlterNet and also the Daily Pitchfork.

The article is the fourth part of the Daily Pitchfork’s “SourceWatch” series on ranchers in the media (you can read the first three parts here, here and here).

SourceWatch was created to address the media’s twin habits of single-source reporting while failing to disclose favored sources’ economic and political conflicts of interest.

“Forbes Billionaires Top US Welfare Ranchers List” is the culmination of an intensive amount of research, and contains a photo gallery of 12 of the US biggest welfare ranchers, including the Koch brothers, the folks who supply McDonalds french fries, and Ted Turner (but no Steve Forbes). Eight of the twelve are on one or more of Forbes “rich” lists.

The rancher series describes different aspects of the federal grazing program important to anyone who cares about Western politics, public lands and wildlife, and truth in media. Two of the segments examine research studies and one has a proposed reading list.

I hope you’ll read all four segments. To learn more, follow us on Twitter @dailypitchfork or become a Daily Pitchfork subscriber (you can sign up from our home page). Please join us!

]]>http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/03/25/welfare-ranchers-riding-high-again/feed/2VickeryStewart and BundyThe media/cowboy love fest is getting out of hand.http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/02/07/the-mediacowboy-love-fest-is-getting-out-of-hand/
http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/02/07/the-mediacowboy-love-fest-is-getting-out-of-hand/#commentsSat, 07 Feb 2015 23:11:30 +0000http://vickeryeckhoff.com/?p=1907]]>The news that the Center for Biological Diversity’s excellent report, Costs and Consequences: The Real Price of Livestock Grazing on America’s Public Landswas picked up by only three publications (after being sent to easily 100 journalists covering ranching and public lands issues) got me googling. Was the press not interested in rancher and public lands issues since the report was published in late January?

Economic data isn’t iconic the way ranchers are. It doesn’t have that rancher-campfire smell about it. But still, I know journalists care about informing the public. So why does the only truth they’re putting out there have a big cowboy hat on it?

Swing on over here for Part I. And it’s a series, pardner. That means more romance is headed your way.

]]>http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/02/07/the-mediacowboy-love-fest-is-getting-out-of-hand/feed/7VickeryRancher romance photoNow Live: The Daily Pitchforkhttp://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/01/06/now-live-the-daily-pitchfork/
http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2015/01/06/now-live-the-daily-pitchfork/#commentsTue, 06 Jan 2015 19:53:41 +0000http://vickeryeckhoff.com/?p=1899]]>Today marks the debut of a media project I’ve been working on for a year with writer and historian James McWilliams: The Daily Pitchfork. It’s a web site specifically dedicated to bringing accuracy and context to the way media presents and analyzes animal issues. We will do this by showcasing the best animal journalism, constructively critiquing the rest, and providing the media with valuable resources to foster the most effective coverage.

Please hop on over and poke around. Our two debut features: “Grass-Fraud Beef” and “Misrepresenting Wild Horses At The New York Times,” are reviews of articles in the Wall Street Journal and New York Times that short-change readers on facts and relevant background, failing to disclose the extent of economic self-interest underlying the article’s main sources and their “information.”

The Times piece, in particular, stirred a large reaction among readers, many of whom shared with me their outreach to the Times over what it had gotten wrong. The Times’ refusal to make corrections on a deeply flawed story earned it an “F” from the Daily Pitchfork’s editors. The Wall Street Journal article earned a “D”.

If you’re wondering what we base our standards on, you’ll find them here.

We’ll be adding site features, notably a “subscribe” button and eventually, a deep database of experts, to help journalists get animal stories rights. Stay tuned—and our thanks for spreading the word.

My December 4 letter to New York Times reporter, Jim Dwyer, seeking correction:

Dear Mr. Dwyer,

I read your article about the DeBlasio plan to end the carriage trade in New York City (“Carriage Horse Proposal’s Effects Might Not Be As Good as Its Intentions”) with great interest, especially the aspects relating to the closure of horse slaughter plants, a topic I’ve spent the last three years researching and writing about for the national news media (Forbes, Newsweek/Daily Beast, Huffington Post) as well as a 25-chapter book proposal and movie script (now nearing completion) on the same subject.

The following underlined and bolded portions of your article’s statement about the GAO report and what it found about abuse and neglect, unfortunately, are incorrect:

“The United States effectively banned slaughter of horses at the end of 2006, according to a 2011 report by the Government Accountability Office, but the story took some bad turns. “Horse welfare in the United States has generally declined since 2007,” the report found, citing increased abandonment and reports of neglect. Abandoned, abused and neglected horses present challenges for state and local governments, tribes and animal welfare organizations.”

The slaughter plants did not effectively close in 2006. They closed their doors in 2007. As the GAO’s June 2011 report itself states on page 1 (“What GAO Found”): “Since domestic horse slaughter ceased in 2007…”

For further proof, please see article from the Kaufman Herald, where Dallas Crown, one of the last three operating US horse slaughter plants, shut its doors.

The last three US slaughterhouses for horses closed in 2007, not 2006, as so much of the news media has falsely reported.

The article “Dallas Crown sends workers home” is dated March 28, 2007. This is the same day that US Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly held that the slaughter of horses in America violated Federal law. ( see story here).

BelTex (Fort Worth), also closed in 2007 as did Cavel, the third plant (in Dekalb, IL), which operated until the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of a lower court’s earlier decision on the constitutionality of a state law banning the practice of horse slaughter. This happened on September 21, 2007. Cavel’s appeal was denied and its temporary injunction to operate was revoked, making it the last US horse slaughter plant to close — again, in 2007. (see story here).

The abuse and neglect you cited from the GAO report, like the claim that the plants “effectively shut” in 2006, has been widely misreported in the news media, particularly by the Associated Press, which I contacted when they made the same false claims. (AP now uses the correct date of plants effetively closing in 2007 and has dropped the correlation with rising abuse and neglect).

Abuse and neglect rates reported in a 2011 GAO report went up while slaughter plants operated. Abuse and neglect rates since the closing of the slaughter plants are most closely correlated with rising cost of hay, as shown in a peer-reviewed study by the Equine Welfare Alliance.

The reason is that the rising rates of abuse and neglect cited by GAO do not correlate with a 2007 plant closing date. Look at the chart. Here, you see ten years of data (only five years of which are referenced in the GAO report…2005-2009). You’ll see that for six different states, abuse and neglect rates rise during the entire time period that the plants remained operating. In Colorado, whose data the GAO singled out, you’ll see clearly that rising abuse and neglect rates are correlated with the years that the plans remained OPEN — not when they closed, as your article falsely claims.

The source of the data is state veterinarians. If you would like a more complete analysis of it, please see this document.

The report was prepared by the Equine Welfare Alliance. You can look at the methodology of collection and analysis. I have gone through it and find it accurately analyzes the data that your article (and other news organizations) got wrong. The longer story here is whether or not the news media should believe a small equine welfare organization, or the AP and the GAO. As one who has spent the last three years studying this topic, I can tell you that the EWA has got this right; the AP got it wrong. I don’t say that without having spent a lot of time looking at both sides and speaking extensively with AP editors, notably Traci Carl, and standards editor, Thomas Kent. And, as I mentioned earlier, the AP, beginning in January of 2014, has corrected itself, using the correct date of closing (2007) and dropping all references to the GAO and abuse and neglect. The New York Times should do the same.

Specifically, please print a correction to your story stating that abuse and neglect rose while slaughter plants operated and turned downward after their closing. As a further note, you might want to consider retracting your related statement of “an earlier example of good intentions with horses that went awry.”

I applaud you for looking at the carriage horse situation, but to compare finding homes for 200 horses to those that ended up abused and slaughtered back when these plants operated is a false parallel.

Thank you for your time and concern. Please reach out to me with any questions. I would be happy to provide further information to you and the editors of The New York Times to substantiate any and all of the above.

Very sincerely yours,

Vickery Eckhoff

]]>http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/12/05/will-new-york-times-correct-errors-to-dec-2-2014-carriage-horse-story/feed/6Vickerynewyorktimes-logoKaufmanHerald_slaughter plant closingAbuse and neglect went up while slaughter plants operated. Abuse and neglect rates, as stated in a study by the Equine Welfare Alliance, are most closely correlated by the increase in hay prices.Wild Horse Roundups Undermined by New BLM Datahttp://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/06/07/wild-horse-roundups-undermined-by-new-blm-data/
http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/06/07/wild-horse-roundups-undermined-by-new-blm-data/#commentsSat, 07 Jun 2014 01:52:33 +0000http://vickeryeckhoff.com/?p=1850]]>

The facts are in: There are 10.6 times as many livestock as wild horses grazing public range lands in Utah’s Iron and Beaver Counties.

For anyone following the news about ranchers looking to round up 697 wild horses there on the taxpayers’ nickel, this is an auspicious (and overdue) piece of BLM (Bureau of Land Management) data. For everyone else, pay attention: that 10:6 to 1 ratio is significant to you as a U.S. taxpayer and citizen—and my latest article on AlterNet (“Ranchers Want Our Public Lands for Their Livestock, and Want the Govt. to Stick It to Wild Horses and Taxpayers”) explains why.

What’s auspicious about the figure of 10.6 to 1? Everything.

The story behind the story

The wild horse issue is a numbers story shaped by two taxpayer-supported federal programs: the BLM’s Wild Horses and Burros Program and the Federal Grazing program. Together, these two programs are responsible for the overgrazing by privately owned livestock of 245 million acres of public land. These programs are also responsible for the simultaneous blaming (and removal) of thousands of wild horses protected by an act of Congress. Both programs are huge money drains for U.S. taxpayers that exist to aid a declining population of ranchers in ten western states supplying two percent of the nation’s beef supply.

It’s a common misperception that the programs are justified because of what ranching contributes to western state economies. According to Western Watersheds founder Jon Marvel, however, these ranchers’ economic contributions are miniscule, both at the state level and within their own communities. In other words, neither program is justified on economic grounds. Neither are they justified on the basis of the ratios of cattle and sheep to wild horses and burros (which varies from area to area), nor on the basis of protecting wild horses, nor the range lands themselves.

First of all, the BLM did not supply it. I asked BLM officials for it three weeks ago (Meghan Crandall, Lisa Reid and Elizabeth Burghard) and was stonewalled.

This explains how the media has so far put out story after story about wild horses overpopulating public lands—because this is the official BLM and rancher story and no data has so far existed to disprove it.

When the news therefore started breaking about Utah ranchers threatening to round up “overpopulating” wild horses unless the BLM did the job, I reached out to local reporters with a single question: “How many cattle and sheep are grazing those lands by comparison”?

Only one reporter got back to me. He said he’d asked the BLM, but not gotten an answer.

So I picked up the phone and called the BLM’s Cedar City Office.

Over the next few days, I contacted four different people, two of them in public and external affairs. These are the government folks that media people like me always get sent to when we come calling for information. It’s their stated job to guide the media—which generally means they supply what they want you to report on, not what you ask for.

Reporters, being hard-working people without the time or resources to go after data while on deadline, use what they can get their hands on. That set-up does not lend itself to factual, data-driven reporting on the wild horse issue, unsurprisingly.

I was told to email my questions to the BLM, and I did so. I asked for several bits of data: how many livestock in Iron and Beaver Counties vs. wild horses? How much does it cost to round up wild horses (per head), what method will be used, and who will pay the BLM’s bill (Utah or federal taxpayers)?

I asked these questions three weeks ago.

A week later, I was told by the BLM’s external affairs person, “we have pulled your numbers, but need to get them approved by our DC office.”

I’ve heard nothing since.

So I went looking elsewhere for data and found two groups willing to supply it. They actually mined the BLM’s Rangeland Administration System (RAS)to its depths —no easy task, but doable with a lot of patience and attention to detail. They examined every grazing allotment, every grazing permit holder, how many sheep and cattle they grazed, and on what rotation schedule for all the allotments overlapping herd management areas from which the wild horses were being targeted for removal in Iron and Beaver counties.

Their complete analysis is far deeper than anything I could fit into an article without overloading people with numbers. But these numbers demand to be looked at. They demand that similar numbers be provided for every area where the BLM is planning on rounding up wild horses for the coming months (and year) on the justification that “there’s an overpopulation of wild horses.”

Seen in light of how many cattle and sheep are out there, this story is provably false.

Please check out the data at The Cloud Foundation and Wild Horse Freedom Federation sites (link tk) and keep checking back as more BLM round ups are planned, to see what those plans will do to the already outsized ratios of livestock outgrazing wild horses on public lands.

The BLM may not be willing to inform the public and the media about how government spends its tax dollars, but there are, fortunately, grassroots groups dedicated to providing that information.

If you know of a reporter or media outlet that are putting out a false “wild horse overpopulation story,” please educate them. Give them a link to the AlterNet story or provide them more detailed data available through the Cloud Foundation and Wild Horse Freedom Federation sites.

And for more on this topic, please follow me on this blog and @viglet on Twitter or read my articles on Forbes.com.

89 mainstream media outlets picked up the AP’s flawed Valley Meat coverage. Of those pictured above, only one (The Christian Science Monitor) responded to public requests for correction.

A series of 18 AP news stories that repeated significant factual errors for a year and a half will not be corrected, according to AP West Editor, Traci Carl.

The articles, which Ms. Carl admits were not fact-checked, followed the attempts of a Roswell, NM, abattoir—Valley Meat—to slaughter horses based on the argument that it would diminish horse abuse and neglect. But there was a problem with that premise, which correlated data showing increasing horse abuse and neglect reported by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) with the closure of the last three domestic horse slaughter plants.

The AP reporter, Jeri Clausing, misreported the closing dates by a year, however, causing the correlation with the GAO data to turn on its head.

Instead of showing that horses suffered abuse and neglect when domestic plants closed, the GAO data instead showed the opposite: that abuse and neglect increased during years in which the plants remained open. But despite being informed of this and other errors, the AP kept repeating them, in most cases, simply cutting and pasting the same false statements—verbatim—into successive articles.

These spread virally across Bloomberg News and Reuters; ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News; NPR; the Boston Globe, Christian Science Monitor, Huffington Post, Wall Street Journal and USA Today—and hundreds of other mainstream and smaller news providers. As of this date, only one of them—The Christian Science Monitor—has responded to requests to issue a public and formal correction.

The Political Consequences of False Reporting

The false claim that banning slaughter increases horse abuse and neglect was a godsend for Valley Meat and other plants looking to produce horse meat in the U.S. The cumulative audience for that message easily reached into the tens of millions, including lawmakers wrestling with whether to ban or welcome horse slaughter plants into their jurisdictions.

Last year, Oklahoma lawmakers argued erroneously but effectively in overturning a 50-year ban on horse slaughter that it would alleviate horse abuse.

That same argument was used to defeat a proposed New York state horse slaughter ban, while farm bureaus and associations in other states used it to promote opening plants in numerous rural communities.

Is it Possible to Hold the Media Accountable?

The false horse-abuse-and-neglect argument wasn’t the only topic on which the AP—and the mainstream news media—misled the public.

Many readers complained about other factually insupportable claims made by the AP’s main sources: specifically, Valley Meat’s owner, Rick de Los Santos; his attorney, Blair Dunn; and supporters.

Beginning in June, 2012, more than 60 emails, phone calls and letters were exchanged with Ms. Clausing; News Editor Linda Ashton; Ms. Carl; Standards Editor Thomas Kent; CEO Gary Pruitt; other AP editors and executives; and the AP corrections line. Part of that outreach included a detailed timeline and analysis demonstrating that the 2007 plant closings did not line up with the GAO data.

But neither that nor the accompanying letter co-signed by seven national experts on horses and the horse slaughter industry persuaded the AP to correct or retract its story.

All requests pertaining to the 18 erroneous articles, including notifying news sources that had republished them, were summarily dismissed. This was odd. Making timely corrections and notifying other news sources was consistent with the AP’s mandate (see AP News Values and Principles).

Besides, who could possibly contest a wrong date?

Further, the AP regularly printed corrected versions of articles in which it had misreported data, dates and made minor spelling errors. So why wouldn’t it with regard to a false claim that had actual political consequences?

When asked why the reporter had not fact-checked her sources, Carl stated that the AP’s only duty was to “share the story” that they provided, not check them for accuracy.

She further argued that data was not necessarily factual and that facts in and of themselves weren’t anything more than opinions.

The takeaway was that if a source used false data to promote a falsehood—as Mr. De Los Santos, Blair Dunn and various other supporters had done—that the AP’s only duty, as Carl saw it, was to quote them and then present another source holding an opposite view.

The AP, Ms. Carl said, leaves it up to readers to then “make up their own minds.”

So a false date producing an erroneous correlation with unrelated data is, in the AP’s eyes, an opinion.

When I emailed Ms. Carl the following day, asking why the AP didn’t label its Valley Meat articles “opinion pieces” rather than “news,” she did not respond. She did, however, email me on March 11, 2014, reiterating the AP’s refusal to correct the specific errors I’d brought to the attention of, as it turns out, 34 different people connected with the AP and its mission:

“As we’ve discussed on numerous occasions, the AP has reviewed your criticism and found no reason to correct or clarify our reporting. We have shared your feedback with relevant reporters and editors and it has helped shape our coverage, and we appreciate your passion and dedication to getting the story right.”

A Public Shellacking?

One year ago, the AP was excoriated in a Huffington Post article (“We Deserved ‘Shellacking’ For Boston Marathon Misreporting”) for errors provided by a source that the AP admitted to not fact checking. It accepted responsibility and fell on its sword.

Is another shellacking in order for the AP–and the rest of the news media—for misleading the public about Valley Meat?

More to the point, if a journalist and six national experts can’t get a news organization of the AP’s stature to report factually on issues that brought this country closer than it has been in seven years to opening horse slaughter houses; if the press won’t fact check when reporting on subjects that have political consequences—then what hope is there for the news media, and the public who relies on it so heavily?

I’ve submitted this story now to The Nation, Mother Jones, Salon and the Huffington Post—a publication that will let you publish nearly anything. The first three didn’t respond to my queries, and the fourth got back to me with a polite “no thanks.”

No one, apparently, wants to criticize the world’s largest news gathering agency. As Mark Twain famously said, “Never pick a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.” Which makes me ask:

Doesn’t This Bother Anyone?

If the lack of media accountability bothers you, do this: tweet this article to every mainstream news source that got this story wrong (you can also follow me on Twitter @viglet). And the next time you see an error from any news organization, demand corrections. Politely contact the reporter, their editor, their corrections department, their standards editor and if necessary, their editorial board and CEO—and don’t give up until they do something.

Lord knows, the nation’s journalists work hard and do tremendous good; but their errors and disinformation are indistinguishable from the truth—and the public pays dearly for it.

On Friday, April 25, 2014, at 10:39 PM, after a great run publishing 23 articles and three photo galleries on horse slaughter, horse racing and wild horses on Forbes.com, the powers that be cut me loose.

Not quite sure why. A few people have suggested it may be on account of Steve Forbes keeping cattle on his New Jersey estate to reduce his property taxes. Others have mentioned Forbes partnership with FOX News.

Whatever prompted the decision, however, there was urgency behind it, coming the night before I was a featured speaker at the American Equine Summit, along with Victoria McCullough, Frank Biden and Senator Joe Abruzzo, and too many other national experts to mention. (See Victoria’s presentation here).

My topic for the summit: Disinformation in the Media. How’s that for irony? (you can view my presentation here).

I’d never gotten a word from Forbes editors that there were problems with any of my stories until Friday at 4:53 pm, when I was driving Jane Velez-Mitchell to the summit to be keynote speaker. (see Jane’s keynote speech here).

This story got more views in a single day than any story I’ve written to date, BTW. Within a day, it reached 26,000 views and I’m told the link got more than 70,000 views on Cloud the Stallion’s Facebook page.

My article covered some of the same territory that Paul Krugman of The New York Times, Chris Hayes and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, and Jon Stewart addressed for millions of viewers. The only difference is that mine exposed why the grazing program was not only a bad deal for tax payers, but wild horses. Oh, and I got the boot while they got ratings!

For some reason, my story rattled Forbes’ corporate cage and hours later, without so much as a phone call, Forbes pulled the plug. These were the first edits I’d been asked to make in more than two years, I made them as requested in a timely manner and notified them that I had done so. The topic was hardly controversial.

Importantly, in my writing for Forbes.com on this subject, I’ve never been challenged on a single fact. I’m proud of that, given the complexities of the horse slaughter trade and wild horses issues. Readers, too, were enthusiastic, praising the series for its research and accuracy, as well as Forbes for running it.

Let me say, I am grateful for the opportunity, which allowed me to explore a difficult subject with Forbes’ credibility behind it, when other media didn’t fact check, got the details plain wrong, and refused to make corrections when their errors were called to their attention.

I’ll continue writing on this topic, aiming for a more mainstream news audience, to reach the kinds of readers who really care about their taxes being wasted by the Federal Government on wild horse roundups and a grazing program that damages public lands at the public’s expense. One would think this was right up Forbes’ alley—the story appeared in its “Taxes” section—but, apparently…no.

I thank all of you for following me on Forbes.com and ask you to read the article and comment, if you haven’t already done so. FYI, my account there is locked, so I cannot call out any comments as I usually would, or even reply to them as author. Forbes has even removed my ability to comment as a reader to other articles. How’s that for gratitude for the two and a half years of free content I provided them?

Maybe they thought I’d go all Cliven Bundy on them, but that’s not my style. Yes, the relationship with Forbes is over; no, I am not dropping this bone.

You can also politely let Forbes editors know how you feel. The link to do that is readers@forbes.com. (PS: They did not fire me as I am not an employee, just one of their many contributors.)

And please check Equine Advocates site to see all video presentations of the American Equine Summit, including my presentations from 2013 and 2014. The speakers were fantastic, and many of them have made huge personal sacrifices in speaking out, like Dr. Ray Kellosalmi, whose horses were poisoned after he went on TV exposing the horrors of the PMU industry supported by drug companies like Pfizer.

Compared to that, losing an unpaid writing gig is minor stuff.

]]>http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/04/29/cliven-bundy-ended-my-forbes-gig/feed/78VickeryStewart and BundyAn Open Letter to the Associated Presshttp://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/01/09/an-open-letter-to-the-associated-press/
http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/01/09/an-open-letter-to-the-associated-press/#commentsThu, 09 Jan 2014 05:57:21 +0000http://vickeryeckhoff.com/?p=1689]]>“For more than a century and a half, men and women of The Associated Press have had the privilege of bringing truth to the world. They have gone to great lengths, overcome great obstacles – and, too often, made great and horrific sacrifices – to ensure that the news was reported quickly, accurately and honestly. Our efforts have been rewarded with trust: More people in more places get their news from the AP than from any other source.”

“In the 21st century, that news is transmitted in more ways than ever before – in print, on the air and on the Web, with words, images, graphics, sounds and video. But always and in all media, we insist on the highest standards of integrity and ethical behavior when we gather and deliver the news.

That means we abhor inaccuracies, carelessness, bias or distortions.

It means we will not knowingly introduce false information into material intended for publication or broadcast…”

Also heartening to read are the AP’s words on making corrections:

“Staffers must notify supervisory editors as soon as possible of errors or potential errors, whether in their work or that of a colleague. Every effort should be made to contact the staffer and his or her supervisor before a correction is moved.

When we’re wrong, we must say so as soon as possible. When we make a correction in the current cycle, we point out the error and its fix in the editor’s note. A correction must always be labeled a correction in the editor’s note. We do not use euphemisms such as “recasts,” “fixes,” “clarifies” or “changes” when correcting a factual error.

A corrective corrects a mistake from a previous cycle. The AP asks papers or broadcasters that used the erroneous information to use the corrective, too.

For corrections on live, online stories, we overwrite the previous version. We send separate corrective stories online as warranted.”

And woe to those who fail to apply the rules:

“The policies set forth in these pages are central to the AP’s mission; any failure to abide by them is subject to review, and could result in disciplinary action, ranging from admonishment to dismissal, depending on the gravity of the infraction.”

This is all a great set-up for the letter I sent this past week to 28 AP executives and editors asking them to correct errors appearing in 18 different articles—errors I started bringing to the AP’s attention back in May of 2013, and which I brought, over a period of months, to the attention of several editors, without a single correction being made and with some rather unfortunate name calling (on their part, not mine).

It’s co-signed by six national experts—people who know more about horse slaughter than anyone. Associated Press, meet Paula Bacon, John Holland, Susan Wagner. Meet Ginger Kathrens and Dr. Ann Marini. Meet James McWilliams.

Here’s the letter. Let’s hope it gets the kind of response it deserves.

RE: Corrections Sought for Errors in 18 AP Articles on Valley Meat and Horse Slaughter in the U.S.

Dear Mr. Pruitt:

The U.S. public is currently facing a pressing food safety, environmental and humane issue: whether or not to allow the slaughter of horses on American soil or their continued export for slaughter in other countries. In order for constituents and their Congressional representatives to make informed choices regarding this matter, it is essential that information presented in the mainstream media be accurate.

Unfortunately, this has not been the case. I’m writing to you because of errors repeated in a series of AP articles that misreport pivotal facts about the closure of the last three horse slaughter plants on U.S. soil. These errors come at the very moment when several plants are on the verge of winning approval to slaughter horses once again in rural America. They are not random details. In fact, they have the power to directly shape the outcome of this contested process.

In eighteen separate articles on the Valley Meat Company in Roswell, New Mexico, the AP repeatedly misstates the facts on the following issues: the legislation that effectively shuttered the horse slaughter industry, the year that this took effect, and the impact that closed horse slaughter plants have had on horse welfare. (see Appendix I, p. 4-9)

Specifically, all the articles erroneously state that it was Congress’ defunding of horse meat inspections in 2006 that effectively shut down the last three operating plants. The articles then correlate this claim with GAO data showing a rise in horse abuse and neglect between 2005-2009. As I will detail below, both claims are not only wrong, they are mistakes that bear directly on a basic assumption shaping how Americans and their representatives think about this issue.

To begin with, while Congress did approve defunding horse slaughter inspections in 2005 (to take effect in 2006), the USDA and the three remaining horse slaughter plants (Dallas Crown and Beltex in TX, and Cavel in IL) arranged to self-fund their own inspections, allowing them to continue slaughtering horses until 2007 (over Congress’ objections).

In 2007, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 1949 ban on slaughtering horses in TX (that had previously gone unenforced) applied, thus shutting down Dallas Crown and Beltex in March. Cavel shut down in September, as a result of an IL state ban. Congress’ defunding of slaughter inspections in subsequent agricultural appropriations bills thus kept new plants from opening until the defunding language got removed by three Congressmen in a November, 2011, conference committee session (after it had been approved for FY 2012). Congress’ defunding of inspections therefore never banned slaughter and never shut a single plant, contrary to what the AP has reported 18 times. More important, horse slaughter continued well after the AP reported that it had ceased. (see Appendix II, p. 10-12).

This detail is profoundly important: Using the correct date of closure (2007), the related claim—that horse abuse increased with closure—is immediately undermined. The data cited by the AP on rising abuse and neglect, in light of the correct time of plant closure, now correlates with abuse and neglect risingwhile the plants remained in operation and falling in the years after they shut.

That correlation shows the opposite of what the AP’s coverage has been asserting in articles published between June, 2012 and November 4, 2013. These false reports, however, have been picked up by every major news organization both in the U.S. and abroad. They have influenced the general public, lawmakers, and courts attempting to shape policy and effect legislation on horse slaughter. They have allowed proponents of horse slaughter to argue—seemingly with evidence—that it is more humane to slaughter them than to keep them alive. They have also completely failed to highlight one of the most important reasons to not slaughter horses at all: that is, food safety issues specific to banned drugs in the majority of U.S. horses that pose known and serious health risks for the public. These include the commonly administered painkiller and anti-inflammatory, phenylbutazone—a known human carcinogen—as well as 117 other drugs (Appendix III, p. 13-17).

Mr. Pruitt, you are receiving this letter because repeated and detailed attempts to correct these errors have been made going back many months to Reporter Jeri Clausing, News Editor Linda Ashton, the AP’s corrections department and West Editor Traci Carl. The information provided to them documenting the AP’s errors has gone ignored.

We, the undersigned, request immediate and formal correction for these errors and omissions in all eighteen AP articles—and subsequent articles—to set the record straight. This action would be consistent with the media’s duty to correct false reporting in the name of the public’s right to know the truth—about food safety risks, abuse and neglect and other impacts of concern to the majority of Americans. Your response to this request for correction is eagerly anticipated. Thank you!

On September 12, 2013, Stephanie Siek of the AP was provided with the following list of excerpts contained in 14 separate articles that repeat wrong dates for the last plant closings, misstate the events that closed them, misrepresent GAO data on horse abuse and neglect and falsely correlate the closings of plants to a decline in horse welfare.

These errors have since appeared in four more articles, resulting in a total of 18 repeating the same misinformation. They are listed below in reverse chronological order.

A vote to end that funding in 2006 had effectively banned horse slaughter until the money was restored in 2011.

The debate over a return to domestic horse slaughter has been an emotional one that centers on whether horses are livestock or companion animals and what is the most humane way to deal with the country’s horse overpopulation, particularly in the drought-stricken West. Supporters say it is better to slaughter unwanted horses in regulated domestic plants than to ship them thousands of miles to sometimes inhumane plants in Mexico.

But De Los Santos was making plans to get to work, two years after converting his struggling cattle slaughterhouse to take advantage of a shift in Congress that lifted a ban on funding for inspections at horse slaughterhouses. A vote to end that funding in 2006 had effectively banned horse slaughter until the money was restored in 2011.

The debate over a return to domestic horse slaughter has been an emotional one that centers on whether horses are livestock or companion animals and what is the most humane way to deal with the country’s horse overpopulation, particularly in the drought-stricken West. Supporters say it is better to slaughter unwanted horses in regulated domestic plants than to ship them to sometimes inhumane plants in Mexico.

Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for plant inspectors in 2006. The ban was lifted in 2011, and Valley Meat Co. has been battling ever since for permission to open its converted cattle slaughterhouse.

Supporters of a return to domestic horse slaughter argue that it is a more humane solution than shipping unhealthy and starving animals south of the border to facilities with unregulated and often cruel circumstances.

Supporters of the domestic horse slaughter note that the practice is already occurring. They argue that horse slaughter in federally regulated facilities is better than having the animals starve or shipped to inhumane facilities in Mexico.

Horse abuse and abandonment cases have increased since the slaughtering of horses was banned in 2006, and many owners in the West and Great Plains were left with fewer options to care for or euthanize their animals, according to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office.

The company slaughtered cattle for more than two decades but decided to convert its operations to horse slaughter after Congress lifted its ban on inspections for horse plants in late 2011, effectively legalizing domestic horse slaughter after the last plants were shuttered in 2007. It fought the USDA for more than a year for its permit, only getting the necessary approval after suing the USDA to force it to conduct the inspections necessary to win a horse slaughtering permit.

Supporters also say it is better to slaughter the horses in regulated and humane domestic facilities than to let them starve or be shipped to other countries for slaughter. They point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows cases of horse abuse and abandonment on a steady rise since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for USDA inspection programs in 2006.

FILE – This April 15, 2013 file photo shows Valley Meat Co., which has been sitting idle for more than a year, waiting for the Department of Agriculture to approve its plans to slaughter horses. A federal judge in Albuquerque is expected to decide Friday, Aug. 2, 2013 whether companies in New Mexico and Iowa can begin legally slaughtering horses, for the first time in the country since it was effectively banned in 2006. (AP Photo/Jeri Clausing, File)

The move stops what would have been the resumption of horse slaughter for the first time in seven years in the U.S.

FILE – This April 15, 2013 file photo shows Valley Meat Co., which has been sitting idle for more than a year, waiting for the Department of Agriculture to approve its plans to slaughter horses. A federal judge in Albuquerque is expected to decide Friday, Aug. 2, 2013 whether companies in New Mexico and Iowa can begin legally slaughtering horses, for the first time in the country since it was effectively banned in 2006. (AP Photo/Jeri Clausing, File)

Congress effectively banned horse slaughter in 2006. But the ban was lifted in 2011, renewing an emotional and divisive national debate over whether horses are livestock or domestic companions, and how best to deal with untold thousands of unwanted, abandoned and often starving horses.

A federal judge in Albuquerque is expected to decide Friday whether companies in New Mexico and Iowa can begin legally slaughtering horses, for the first time in the country since it was effectively banned in 2006.

The groups sued the Department of Agriculture in June after it issued permits to the companies, which would be the first to legally slaughter horses in the country since Congress effectively banned the practice in 2006. The ban was lifted in 2011, renewing an emotional and divisive national debate over whether horses are livestock or domestic companions, and how best to deal with untold thousands of unwanted, abandoned and often starving horses.

Supporters of domestic slaughter point to a June 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office thatshows cases of horse abuse and abandonment on a steady rise since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for USDA inspection programs in 2006.

They also cite USDA statistics compiled by the Equine Welfare Alliance that show the number of U.S. horses sent to other countries for slaughter has nearly tripled since domestic horse slaughter ceased, with many of shipped thousands of miles south of the border to unregulated and inhumane facilities. They say it is better to slaughter the horses in regulated and humane domestic facilities than to let them starve or be shipped to Mexico.

The denial came the same day that Redford and Richardson joined the fray, announcing formation of an animal protection foundation whose first act was to seek to join a federal lawsuit filed by The Humane Society of the United States and other groups to block the planned Aug. 5 opening of Valley Meat and another recently approved horse slaughterhouse in Iowa. The plants would be the first horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. to operate in more than six years.

With the action, the Roswell, N.M., company becomes the first operation in the nation licensed to process horses into meat since Congress effectively banned the practice seven years ago.

The plant would become the first horse slaughterhouse to operate in the country since Congress banned the practice by eliminating funding for inspections at the plants. Congress reinstated the funding in 2011, but the USDA has been slow in granting permits, citing the need to re-establish an oversight program.

Proponents of a return to domestic horse slaughter point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows horse abuse and abandonment have been increasing since slaughter was banned in 2006, leaving fewer humane options for horse owners who can’t afford to care for or euthanize their animals.

They say it is better to slaughter the animals in humane, federally regulated facilities than have them abandoned to starve across the drought-stricken West or sold at auction houses that then ship them to inhumane facilities in Mexico.

The number of U.S. horses sent to other countries for slaughter has nearly tripled since 2006, the report says. Many humane groups agree that some of the worst abuse occurs in the slaughter pipeline. Many are pushing for a ban on domestic slaughter and a ban on shipping horses to Mexico and Canada.

The issue of whether the plant needs the federal permit was first raised by some of the groups opposed to congressional action in 2011 that restored USDA funding for horse slaughter inspections, essentially legalizing the practice that had been banned in 2006 when Congress cut the funding.

Proponents of a return to domestic horse slaughter point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows horse abuse and abandonment have been increasing since slaughter was banned in 2006. They say it is better to slaughter the animals in humane, federally regulated facilities than have them abandoned to starve across the drought-stricken West or shipped to inhumane facilities in Mexico.

The number of U.S. horses sent to other countries for slaughter has nearly tripled since 2006. And many humane groups agree that some of the worst abuse occurs in the slaughter pipeline. Many are pushing for a both a ban on domestic slaughter as well as a ban on shipping horses to Mexico and Canada.

The Obama Administration opposes horse slaughter. Its recent budget proposal eliminates funding for inspections of horse slaughter houses, which would effectively reinstate a ban on the practice. Congress eliminated that funding in 2006, which forced a shutdown of domestic slaughter facilities. But Congress reinstated the funding in 2011, prompting Valley Meat Co. and a handful of other businesses around the country to seek permission to open plants.

At issue is whether horses are livestock or pets, and how best to control the nation’s exploding equine population. Supporters of horse slaughter point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows horse abuse and abandonment have been increasing since 2006. They say it is better to slaughter the animals in humane, federally regulated facilities than have them abandoned to starve across the drought-stricken West or shipped to inhumane facilities south of the border.

The number of U.S. horses sent to other countries for slaughter has nearly tripled since 2006. And many humane groups agree that some of the worst abuse occurs in the slaughter pipeline.

And Tuesday, it moved one step closer to becoming the first plant in the country in more than six years to slaughter horses, with a successful inspection by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Still others are pushing for a return to domestic slaughter. Proponents include several Native American tribes, the American Quarter Horse Association, some livestock associations and even a few horse rescue groups that believe domestic slaughter would be more humane than shipping the animals elsewhere.

They point to a 2011 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office that found horse abuse and abandonment increasing since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for federal inspection programs in 2006. Because rescue groups can’t take care of all of the horses in need, tens of thousands have been shipped to slaughterhouses in Mexico.

But others — including some horse rescuers, livestock associations and the American Quarter Horse Association — support the plans. They point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows horse abuse and abandonment have been increasing since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for federal inspection programs in 2006. They say the ban on domestic slaughter has led to tens of thousands of horses being shipped to inhumane slaughterhouses in Mexico.

Others, however, including some horse rescues, livestock associations and the American Quarter Horse Association, support a return to domestic horse slaughter. They point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows horse abuse and abandonment have been increasing since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for USDA inspection programs in 2006.

Some others, however, including some horse rescues, livestock associations and the American Quarter Horse Association, support a return to domestic horse slaughter. They point to a 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows horse abuse and abandonment have been increasing since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for USDA inspection programs in 2006.

Last year, 68,429 horses were shipped to that country and 64,652 to Canada, according to USDA statistics compiled by the Equine Welfare Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to ending horse slaughter. That compares to total exports of 37,884 of the animals in 2006.

Supporters of horse slaughter point to a June 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office that shows cases of horse abuse and abandonment on a steady rise since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for USDA inspection programs in 2006.

In Colorado, the GAO report states, investigations for abuse and neglect increased more than 60 percent after horse slaughter was banned domestically, from 975 in 2005 to 1,588 in 2009. Although national data is lacking, the GAO report says California, Texas and Florida have also reported a rise in the number of abandoned horses since 2007.

The number of U.S. horses sent to other countries for slaughter has nearly tripled since domestic horse slaughter ceased. Last year, 68,429 horses were shipped to Mexico and 64,652 to Canada, according to USDA statistics compiled by the Equine Welfare Alliance, a nonprofit dedicated to ending horse slaughter. That compares to total exports of 37,884 in 2006.

APPENDIX II:

Timeline—How and When Slaughter Ended in the U.S.

On October 15, 2013, Traci Carl, West Editor for the AP, was provided with the following timeline to corroborate the actual dates of plant closings, as well as what happened in between Congress’ 2005 vote to defund horse slaughter inspectors and the actual court decisions that finally forced the doors of Beltex, Dallas Crown and Cavel shut two years later. This followed several previous emails attempting to explain what the AP had gotten wrong in its coverage.

Ms. Carl consistently expressed confusion over the issues being raised, but declined offers to discuss them by phone (instead of email). All requests for correction were refused.

Back on November 11, 2005, Congress added a defunding provision to the FY 2006 Agriculture Appropriations Bill prohibiting the use of federal funds to pay for salaries and expenses of personnel to inspect horses being slaughtered for human consumption (HR 2744).

This followed strong bipartisan floor votes of 269-158 in the House and 69-29 in the Senate, according to news sources. The provision effectively precluded the USDA from inspecting horse slaughter facilities as required by section 603 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) and section 903 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement Reform Act (FAIR). At this time, the USDA spent an estimated $5 million annually for oversight and inspection of three foreign-owned, U.S. based horse slaughter plants.

The inspections ban should have begun at the beginning of the fiscal year (October 1, 2005), but the budget conference committee (including Herb Kohl, Jack Kingston, Conrad Burns, and Larry Craig) delayed its implementation.

On November 23, 2005, horse slaughter plants in Texas and Illinois quietly petitioned the USDA and FSIS behind Congress’ back to pay for their own inspections, allowing them to continue slaughter operations despite a lack of federal funding, by paying USDA inspectors out of their own pockets.

On January 13, 2006, an article in the Washington Times explained, “Last year, Congress voted overwhelmingly to include an amendment in the agriculture appropriations bill that would, in the words of Sen. John Ensign, “end the slaughter of America’s horses for human consumption overseas.” Mr. Ensign was a co-sponsor of the bill, as was Sen. Robert Byrd, who said the amendment would “stop the slaughter of horses for human consumption.” In the House, amendment co-sponsor Rep. John Spratt said, “This amendment in simple terms will stop the slaughter for human consumption of horses. So, we learn with surprise that this amendment apparently “does not prevent horse slaughter at all,” according to Department of Agriculture General Counsel James Michael Kelly. All it does, Mr. Kelly wrote in a letter to Congress, is prohibit ‘expenditure of funds provided under the 2006 [appropriations] Act to pay the salaries and expenses of personnel to inspect the horses.’ In other words, the only purpose of the amendment is to cut a little grist from the federal budget.”

On February 7, 2006, the USDA’s fee-for-service arrangement was announced. As the Washington Times stated in its article, Town Seeks an End to Horse Slaughtering: “Since law has always required such inspections, it [Congress’ ban on funding inspections] seemed to put an end to a growing controversy. Passed by the House and the Senate, the Ensign amendment was considered by its sponsors as an absolute end of U.S. horse slaughter for human consumption. But a concerted campaign by Belgian-owned slaughterhouses soon uncovered a loophole in the congressional edict. Now, nearing the end of a six-month delay, the USDA has announced that the new order (no USDA-paid inspections) actually did not halt horse slaughter and that private companies could simply pick up the tab for inspection costs.”

On February 13, 2006, in the United States District Court, District of Columbia, six national humane groups representing over 9.5 million members and several individuals filed a complaint in federal court against Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and Food Safety and Inspection Service Administrator Barbara Masters, challenging the USDA’s decision to create a fee-for-service inspection system that facilitates the continued transport and slaughter of tens of thousands of American horses for human consumption abroad each year. The lawsuit was unsuccessful.On February 22, 2006, the HSUS filed for a preliminary injunction to prevent the inspections of horsemeat until a pending lawsuit against the USDA prohibiting the fee-for-service inspections could be settled. The Court dismissed two of the three claims filed in that lawsuit on grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Fee-for-service inspections commenced on March 10, 2006. On Tuesday, March 14, a federal judge ruled in favor of the USDA to allow fee-for-service inspections to horsemeat processing plants despite efforts of the HSUS and other animal welfare groups to prevent the inspections and thus close the plants.

On January 19, 2007, a panel of judges from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that slaughtering horses for meat was illegal in Texas. This decision tied up an earlier case dating back to August, 2003, when Texas Attorney General John Cornyn issued an opinion on a long-forgotten piece of legislation (Ag Code 149) that had gone unenforced since it had been passed in 1949. Specifically, Cornyn’s August, 2003 opinion stated that the law applied to both Dallas Crown and Beltex. The two Texas plants responded to an order by the Tarrant County Assistant District Attorney to shut down by filing a suit challenging the law. Their argument? That a ban would violate the Constitution’s commerce clause and federal meat inspection laws.

In 2006, a judge ruled in favor of the plants, but this decision was overturned by the New Orleans appellate court. Even though it upheld the Texas ban on slaughtering horses, however, the plants did not shut. They continued slaughtering horses. Within 14 days of the Fifth Circuit Court decision, Dallas Crown & Beltex asked for an enbanc by the Fifth Circuit.

In February, 2007, Dallas Crown and Beltex took their case up to the Supreme Court, which rejected their appeal. But the plants continued slaughtering horses.

On March 5, 2007, the entire Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an earlier panel decision upholding the Texas state law (Ag Code 149) banning the sale of horsemeat for human consumption.

On March 23, 2007, the The Kaufman Herald, reported that Dallas Crown had finally sent its employees home. This left just Cavel, in DeKalb, IL, operating.

On March 29, 2007, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia effectively blocked the USDA from providing horsemeat inspections for a fee. She ruled that the USDA violated the National Environmental Policy Act by failing to conduct an environmental impact review of its decision to allow the continuation of horse slaughter. Technically,,America’s remaining slaughterhouse could no longer kill horses for human consumption.

On May 5, 2007, Cavel, The DeKalb Illinois slaughter plant, which had been forced to close for several weeks, won the latest round in a long battle over the processing of horses, scoring a win in the Federal Appeals Court in Washington that allowed the plant to re-open. The court issued a stay on an order banning USDA inspections.

On May 24, Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich signed HB 1711 banning the slaughter of horses for human consumption, making it illegal for Cavel to continue operations. On May 25, the Belgian-owned company filed a lawsuit claiming the new law banning the slaughter of horses intended for human consumption was unconstitutional.

On June 1, 2007, U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Kapala granted a temporary restraining order preventing state and DeKalb County officials from enforcing the slaughter ban passed in Illinois while the suit was being considered.

Slaughter continued pending a restraining order set to expire after Jun 14. Hearings in the case were scheduled for June 12 and 14. On June 17, Kapala granted a 10-day extension to Cavel while he considered whether to make the order permanent. On June 28, an order keeping the last U.S. horse slaughter plant in DeKalb open was set to expire.

A Federal judge refused a request from Cavel to stay open. On July 5, an Illinois law banning horse slaughter was upheld in Federal Court. However, Cavel appealed stating that the ban on horse slaughter for human consumption was unconstitutional.

On July 18, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals granted a motion by Cavel International, allowing the plant to temporarily resume horse slaughter operations. The facility was allowed to operate while the appeal was pending.

On September 21, 2007, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in support of a lower court’s earlier decision on the constitutionality of a state law banning the practice of horse slaughter for human consumption. Cavel’s appeal was denied and its temporary injunction was revoked. Cavel became the last horse slaughter house in the U.S. to close.

]]>http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2014/01/09/an-open-letter-to-the-associated-press/feed/17VickerySignatures_AP“You sound like a fucking bitch”http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2013/11/06/you-sound-like-a-fucking-bitch/
http://vickeryeckhoff.com/2013/11/06/you-sound-like-a-fucking-bitch/#commentsWed, 06 Nov 2013 15:27:11 +0000http://vickeryeckhoff.com/?p=1645]]>I have a new post today on Forbes.com: Grand Opening of Horse Slaughter Plants Foiled Again. You can read it here.

The topic may seem obscure, but it’s probably my most important writing to date: exposing false reporting by the Associated Press in 16 different articles (as of this writing) that have, for a year and a half, made their way into every mainstream media organization in the U.S., misleading the public on critical facts about horse slaughter just as two and possibly three plants get closer to opening in America’s heartland.

I started tracking these errors across the media landscape in June, 2012 as they started appearing in a variety of mainstream news sites. As of yesterday, I picked up these same recurring errors in two new AP stories that have appeared on all the networks, in The Christian Science Monitor, Bloomberg, Huffington Post, Reuters, and countless online news sites. I’ve also picked up false reports in The New York Times, on NPR, and other news organizations that have a high standard of accuracy. The AP’s stamp was on all of them.

I approached the AP back in June of 2012, then again in April, and steadily from May onward, inquiring about errors I found and seeking correction.

The first person I spoke to was the AP reporter who has become the voice for Valley Meat for the American Press—Jeri Clausing. I called her again 10 months later.

Ms. Clausing did not take kindly to my inquiries. On my second call, during which I politely inquired as to her source for figures on horse overpopulation that I knew to be incorrect, she wouldn’t let me get a word in. She kept repeating, “you’re a horse advocate, you’re a horse advocate” despite my having offered my credentials as a journalist who had published extensively on Forbes.com and the Huffington Post (I have since been published in Newsweek), on the topic of horse slaughter.

Upon my strong objection to being spoken to in such a rude manner, Ms. Clausing responded: “You sound like a fucking bitch.”

So I reached out to Ms. Clausing’s news editor, Linda Ashton. I explained my concerns and she requested I write up my credentials and the errors I found in Ms. Clausing’s articles, along with links proving what was wrong and why.

As part of that, I reread each of the articles referenced above, researched Ms. Clausing’s sources in greater depth and reread materials referenced numerous times within her storyline (specifically, the June 2011 GAO Report).

What I found confirms my impression of bias throughout the seven articles favoring proponents of Valley Meat and their point of view, along with related errors.

Table I shows proponents enjoying a 69.4% share of voice compared to just 12.7% for opponents in the AP’s coverage. The figures were determined by doing word counts for groupings of similar text (talking points, reference materials, editorial commentary, photo captions, etc.). Neutral text (such as legislation and quotes from people without a discernible point of view), accounts for the difference between the two column totals (on the right) and the total word count (on the left).

Table II shows proponents and opponents represented in roughly equal numbers with regard to the individuals, organizations and constituencies (ranchers, horse rescues, public officials, livestock associations, etc.) named in the text. Where they diverge is the total number of mentions and talking time they get.

Six individual opponents get mentioned 18 times (3 mentions per individual).

The same holds true for organizations and constituents named in the text. If they’re proponents, they get more frequent mentions and longer quotes.

There were five recurring errors I highlighted in my letter to Ms. Ashton. The most egregious appeared in six of the seven articles I reviewed. It stated the following:

“A June 2011 report from the federal Government Accountability Office shows cases of horse abuse and abandonment on a steady rise since Congress effectively banned horse slaughter by cutting funding for USDA inspection programs in 2006.”

This quote gives credence to Ms. Clausing’s frequent mentions of “abused,” “abandoned” “neglected,” “starved” and “unwanted” horses (24 mentions in her first article alone) despite a GAO acknowledgement that “national data is lacking.” This admission appears on page two of the 2011 report and is briefly mentioned in Ms. Clausing’s first article, but is otherwise absent, along with any discussion about the lack of national and almost complete lack of state data.

A worse problem, however is her getting the events wrong that shut down the slaughter plants and when that occurred. This is the main topic of my Forbes.com article today.

In any event, Ms. Ashton repeated that the AP’s reporting was both factual and balanced, and started knocking my professional credentials to request a correction. She said, “I’ve looked at your articles, and I think they’re biased.”

Let me address that. It’s a valid point.

I don’t quote Rick de los Santos in my articles, though I do mention him in one. I have interviewed him, though, back in March when that video of his employee, Tim Sappington, came out shooting a horse in the head while swearing at animal rights activists.

The interview with Mr. De Los Santos was long and uneventful—so much so he gave me his cellphone number and asked me not to share it. The next day, however, his attorney, A. Blair Dunn, sent me the following note:

“You are receiving this correspondence because you communicated to a person associated with Valley Meat Company, LLC a degratory, defamatory or threatening statement or aided in deciminating the information necessary to conspire to do the same. As legal counsel for for Valley Meat Company this email shoud serve as notice I do not represent Tim Sappington, nor is he associated with Valley Meat Company in any capacity.

Because of the statements you have made it is my reccomendation that you retain your own legal counsel. At this time any communications you made that threaten or harass any person associated with Valley Meat Company will be referred to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security for investigation and prosecution under the Animal Enterprise Terroism Act (SEE BELOW). Neither Valley Meat nor the Law Office of A. Blair Dunn will tolerate threatening or defamatory statements and will contemplate civil action against any individuals or groups that persist in that type of activity.

Thank you for your consideration.”

Mr. Dunn’s spelling errors and threats notwithstanding, I reached out to Mr. De Los Santos a second time, and got more harassing notes from Mr. Dunn.

I also reached out to several other individuals in Ms. Clausing’s articles to get quotes. None called me back. That’s not a result of bias on my part; it’s a result of bias on theirs. They don’t mind speaking to Ms. Clausing because she seems to take everything they say at face value. That’s not my orientation.

But back, again, to my correspondence with Ms. Ashton. Having gotten nowhere with my request for corrections, I decided to take my concerns up the chain at the AP.

I next wrote to the AP’s corrections line. I called, too. When I finally got someone on the phone, they wouldn’t direct me to an actual editor and told me to email them again. When I told them I’d done that already, they hung up on me. So I emailed them again. Again, no one got back to me.

So I contacted a very attentive editor named Stephanie Siek. She asked me to do a write up on what I found and vowed to send it on to the appropriate editor at the AP. Several weeks later, I was in correspondence with Traci Carl, whose title is West Editor. She oversees 13 different regions for the AP, including Albuquerque, Ms. Clausing’s base.

Ms. Carl’s response to my inquiry was pretty much what I expected:

“Stephanie Siek brought your concerns to my attention, as I oversee news for 13 Western states, including New Mexico. The Associated Press takes all potential errors seriously, and I’ve reviewed our stories and the facts called into question. At this time, I don’t see a need for a corrective. As you state, and as we reported, Congress cut the funding for inspection programs in 2006. And I reviewed the GAO report and found that it did cite a rise in horse abuse and abandonment, as stated in our article. Thanks again for your concern and interest.”

I responded:

“Thank you for getting back to me about the errors in Ms. Clausing’s reporting.

The point being made isn’t when Congress cut funding (2006), as you suggest. It is about Ms. Clausing stating that the removal of funding effectively shut the plants down in 2006 when that didn’t happen until 2007 (they were kept in operation by fee-for-service inspections, which the court found illegal, shutting the plants down). The closure of plants and the stated correlation with an alleged rise in abuse and abandonment in 2006 are central features of all Ms. Clausing’s coverage. This correlation falls apart given the true date of closing.

In fact, that abuse and neglect went up for a year prior to the plants’ closing proves the two are not correlated. That abuse and neglect figures declined after the plants closed also proves that point.

The AP’s coverage makes the case that keeping horse slaughter plants open is a more humane option and uses the wrong date of closing to prove that point. Please explain why 14 articles and hundreds of spin-off articles based on a false date and a false correlation do not require correction.

I’ve been writing articles on this subject for two years. I’ve been writing letters on this to the AP since May seeking correction. May I please have the courtesy of speaking to you about what is admittedly a very complex topic in person.”

Ms. Carl’s next response was more promising:

“Again, thank you for your enthusiasm and interest in this story. We do want to get it right.

I have to admit that I’ve gone through the story and your emails several times, and I’m still struggling to understand the errors as reported by the AP. The concerns you raise seem like they should be directed at the GAO and their report.

Please let me know if I’m not understanding the situation. If you raise a specific error in our reporting, I will vet it and correct it for the record.”

So I wrote back with the following:

“Thanks for looking at this further and for your assurances that the AP wants to get this right. I appreciate your question about whether you understand this. The answer is no — it’s way more complicated than you or the AP reporter, Jeri Clausing (or most people) understand. So let me lay out what happened in detail, and what Ms. Clausing misstates in 15 different articles, specifically:

That Congress defunded inspections in 2006

that this effectively caused the plants to close in 2006

that the GAO report showed a corresponding rise in horse abuse and abandonment”

To that, I appended a very long timeline (a feature of today’s Forbes.com post) detailing all the events that occurred between when Congress voted to defund horse slaughter inspections (in 2005) and when the plants actually shut down (on account of state bans in TX and IL) in 2007.

Clearly, I expected that this would prove my point. The AP had screwed up the dates as well as which events led to what outcome. What I got back from Ms. Carl showed otherwise:

“I’ve reviewed our coverage, and we are clear that the vote to cut funding came in 2005, and that Congress’ intention was to effectively ban horse slaughter with that vote. You are right that we don’t mention efforts by Illinois and Texas to get around that vote, but it doesn’t change Congress’ intent, which was at the heart of the horse slaughter debate. I don’t see a need for correction or clarification on that point.

As for the Colorado data, by your own reporting and facts below, cases did rise after funding was pulled in 2006, so I don’t see a need for a correction or clarification on that point. Again, thanks for your passion and interest in this topic.”

I responded:

“I am a bit perplexed by your message.

Nowhere in any of the (now) 15 articles does Ms. Clausing state the vote to cut funding came in 2005. I have aggregated all the text for all 15 articles into one word doc and there is only one mention of “2005” in all of them, and it has nothing to do with Congress. Further, I only find three mentions of “intent” and none have to do with Congress.

What I find repeatedly—and have pointed out in all my correspondence to you—is Ms. Clausing saying Congress “effectively” banned slaughter in 2006. This is factually and demonstrably incorrect. Congress intent to defund it and Congress actually defunding it did not close the plants and it is the “effective” closing of them that Ms. Clausing is correlating with a “consistent increase and abuse and neglect”. This also did not happen, either, as the data shows abuse going up while plants were still open and going down after they closed.

Again, it was state laws that closed the plants in 2007, a full year after Ms. Clausing said they closed. I don’t know how I can be any more clear in proving this point to you.

Can you please address these specific errors? Thank you!”

The answer to that was: silence. I sent an email asking who I could talk to since she wasn’t willing to take it further. She said: “I’m the person you should talk to at AP, and I believe I’ve addressed your questions.”

The AP, as of today, has now put out 17 articles, 16 of which carry the error I described above. The other article has different problems with it. The entire series is riddled with them. Yet I chose the most easy-to-spot error— a false date—to prove the need for a correction.

How many meaningless corrections are made to news stories that are date-related (getting a birthdate wrong) while significant errors go uncorrected, simply because a news organization has sunk its credibility into some really unfactual coverage, and doesn’t want to come clean?

This is having a profound impact on how the public is responding to what could soon be plants opening in New Mexico and possibly Missouri and Iowa. Essentially, the majority of Americans are against horse slaughter, but there are still people making up their minds about whether or not this is a good or bad idea. And a lot of false information from the AP and other generally credible news sources doesn’t help them do that. The news keeps changing: the plants are opening; the plants aren’t opening; restaurants are gearing up to serve horse meat. The news cycle feeds off the crazy factor—none of it with a basis in reality.

If this matters to you, here’s what you do:

Write to the Associated Press and every news source that’s picked up the AP’s coverage. Tell them your concerns. Give them a link to my Forbes article and ask them for a correction.

Keep asking. Then, start demanding.

I’ve done my part. I’ve put the story out there. It’s your turn, now to raise hell. But be polite. If anyone speaks to an editor the way that AP reporter spoke to me, your concern will go nowhere.

There’s power in your words and most importantly, provable facts. Use them!

The latest egregious example is the New York Daily News, which falsely reported that NYC carriage horses would go to slaughter if the carriage trade is shut down—which it certainly will be regardless of who is elected as the city’s next mayor in this Tuesday’s coming election.

The original Daily News articles are a too-common example of media disinformation—this time, with an authoritatively misinformed Mayor Michael Bloomberg as the source. The Daily News picked it up and ran with it—citing numerous “experts,” four of whom were not even named, and none of whom had a clue about rehoming horses.

Sure, you can dig up an expert—but their words only count if they happen to be TRUE regarding the specific claim: in this case, NYC carriage horses and whether or not they’d go to slaughter.

As it turns out, the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, IS an expert on this topic, and reached out to its broad network of horse sanctuaries, assuring everyone that the horses would have homes if their owners couldn’t find them, themselves.

Some of you may know of my long battle with the Associated Press to correct documented and serious errors repeated in 15 different articles published by the Albuquerque AP news bureau about Valley Meat, a Roswell NM slaughter plant that wants to be the nation’s first to start slaughtering horses.

Correcting the news media is everyone’s concern, however—not just mine as a journalist.

I’m therefore inviting all of you who demand better researched, fact-checked and correct information about this issue, or the carriage horses, to write to the corrections departments of every media organization that gets the story wrong.

Write them and do this: demand they perform their duty. All of them have corrections departments. If they don’t correct, why are they there?

Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t know carriage horses, and he probably doesn’t care if he’s wrong. But I do, and you do.

Take the time to reach out to every media source—including the writer but especially the corrections department—demanding accuracy and accountability.

Be polite, be factual and be persistent—and don’t ever think they don’t hear you.